Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS
To evaluate whether reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI sequence improves the differentiation between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using VI-RADS. Eighty-nine patients underwent bladder MRI with full field-of-view (fFOV) DWI and rFOV DWI sequence....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271470-e0271470 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0271470 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e0271470 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Juri, Hiroshi Higashiyama, Akira Yamamoto, Kiyohito Narumi, Yoshifumi Azuma, Haruhito Yamamoto, Kazuhiro Osuga, Keigo |
| description | To evaluate whether reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI sequence improves the differentiation between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using VI-RADS. Eighty-nine patients underwent bladder MRI with full field-of-view (fFOV) DWI and rFOV DWI sequence. Images were independently evaluated by 2 radiologists. The sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and areas under the curve (AUCs) for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC with fFOV DWI and with rFOV DWI sequence were calculated using VI-RADS. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) values were measured for each patient and averaged. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC by reader 1 were 92%, 78%, 82% and 0.905 with fFOV DWI, and 92%, 86%, 88% and 0.916 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC by reader 2 were 96%, 76%, 82% and 0.900 with conventional DWI, and 96%, 81%, 85% and 0.907 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The specificity and accuracy of reader 1 were significantly better with rFOV DWI sequence than with fFOV DWI, in contrast there was no significant difference for the others. The average of ADC values of fFOV DWI and rFOV DWI sequence were 1.004x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s and 1.003x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s, respectively. The diagnostic ability of rFOV DWI sequence may be better than that of fFOV DWI using VI-RADS for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC regardless of image-reading experience, it is controversial. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0271470 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2692042505</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A710905455</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_323cac65eb1a42b481170987b52f3732</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A710905455</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c599t-f3bfb8ab45e22b1956ed213dd11de68beab52802f83dface00c251767a75245a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk11rFDEUhgdRbF39B4IDgujFrPmYTGZuhNL6sVAotFovQyY52U3JJmsys9U_5u8za8fSlYKSQMI5T97kvOQUxXOM5phy_PYqjNFLN98ED3NEOK45elAc4o6SqiGIPryzPyiepHSFEKNt0zwuDihrGedte1j8PA7rjYw2BV8GU0bQowJdGgtOV8FUWwvX5cnXRSl9jo7O3abK25QJsRxWUGprDETwg5WDzXo9DNcAvvTBV-sxKQel9VuZ7BbK3kmtIZZKepWXnfo_kDFZvywvF9X50cnF0-KRkS7Bs2mdFV8-vP98_Kk6Pfu4OD46rRTruqEytDd9K_uaASE97lgDmmCqNcYamrYH2TPSImJaqo1UgJAiDPOGS85IzSSdFS9udDcuJDFZngRpOoJqwrKhs2JxQ-ggr8Qm2rWMP0SQVvwOhLgUMg42VyYooUqqhkGPZU36usWYo67l-Q2G8pydFe-m28Z-DVplK6N0e6L7GW9XYhm2oiNdnjgLvJ4EYvg2QhrE2iYFzkkPYZzezUnTdBl9-Rd6f3UTtZS5AOtNyPeqnag44hh1iNVsR83vofLQsLYq_09jc3zvwJu9A5kZ4PuwlGNKYnFx_v_s2eU---oOuwLphlUKbtx9x7QP1jegiiGlCObWZIzErr3-uCF27SWm9qK_AAfrF18</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2692042505</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Juri, Hiroshi ; Higashiyama, Akira ; Yamamoto, Kiyohito ; Narumi, Yoshifumi ; Azuma, Haruhito ; Yamamoto, Kazuhiro ; Osuga, Keigo</creator><contributor>Benetreau, Yann</contributor><creatorcontrib>Juri, Hiroshi ; Higashiyama, Akira ; Yamamoto, Kiyohito ; Narumi, Yoshifumi ; Azuma, Haruhito ; Yamamoto, Kazuhiro ; Osuga, Keigo ; Benetreau, Yann</creatorcontrib><description>To evaluate whether reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI sequence improves the differentiation between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using VI-RADS. Eighty-nine patients underwent bladder MRI with full field-of-view (fFOV) DWI and rFOV DWI sequence. Images were independently evaluated by 2 radiologists. The sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and areas under the curve (AUCs) for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC with fFOV DWI and with rFOV DWI sequence were calculated using VI-RADS. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) values were measured for each patient and averaged. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC by reader 1 were 92%, 78%, 82% and 0.905 with fFOV DWI, and 92%, 86%, 88% and 0.916 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC by reader 2 were 96%, 76%, 82% and 0.900 with conventional DWI, and 96%, 81%, 85% and 0.907 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The specificity and accuracy of reader 1 were significantly better with rFOV DWI sequence than with fFOV DWI, in contrast there was no significant difference for the others. The average of ADC values of fFOV DWI and rFOV DWI sequence were 1.004x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s and 1.003x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s, respectively. The diagnostic ability of rFOV DWI sequence may be better than that of fFOV DWI using VI-RADS for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC regardless of image-reading experience, it is controversial.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271470</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35857788</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Biology and Life Sciences ; Bladder ; Bladder cancer ; Cancer ; Care and treatment ; Diagnosis ; Differentiation ; Diffusion coefficient ; Engineering and Technology ; Evaluation ; Gastrointestinal cancer ; Invasiveness ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical imaging ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methyl isobutyl carbinol ; Muscles ; Patients ; Research and Analysis Methods</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271470-e0271470</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Juri et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Juri et al 2022 Juri et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c599t-f3bfb8ab45e22b1956ed213dd11de68beab52802f83dface00c251767a75245a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c599t-f3bfb8ab45e22b1956ed213dd11de68beab52802f83dface00c251767a75245a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8976-6007</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299291/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299291/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Benetreau, Yann</contributor><creatorcontrib>Juri, Hiroshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higashiyama, Akira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Kiyohito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narumi, Yoshifumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azuma, Haruhito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osuga, Keigo</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS</title><title>PloS one</title><description>To evaluate whether reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI sequence improves the differentiation between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using VI-RADS. Eighty-nine patients underwent bladder MRI with full field-of-view (fFOV) DWI and rFOV DWI sequence. Images were independently evaluated by 2 radiologists. The sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and areas under the curve (AUCs) for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC with fFOV DWI and with rFOV DWI sequence were calculated using VI-RADS. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) values were measured for each patient and averaged. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC by reader 1 were 92%, 78%, 82% and 0.905 with fFOV DWI, and 92%, 86%, 88% and 0.916 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC by reader 2 were 96%, 76%, 82% and 0.900 with conventional DWI, and 96%, 81%, 85% and 0.907 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The specificity and accuracy of reader 1 were significantly better with rFOV DWI sequence than with fFOV DWI, in contrast there was no significant difference for the others. The average of ADC values of fFOV DWI and rFOV DWI sequence were 1.004x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s and 1.003x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s, respectively. The diagnostic ability of rFOV DWI sequence may be better than that of fFOV DWI using VI-RADS for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC regardless of image-reading experience, it is controversial.</description><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bladder</subject><subject>Bladder cancer</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Differentiation</subject><subject>Diffusion coefficient</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal cancer</subject><subject>Invasiveness</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methyl isobutyl carbinol</subject><subject>Muscles</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk11rFDEUhgdRbF39B4IDgujFrPmYTGZuhNL6sVAotFovQyY52U3JJmsys9U_5u8za8fSlYKSQMI5T97kvOQUxXOM5phy_PYqjNFLN98ED3NEOK45elAc4o6SqiGIPryzPyiepHSFEKNt0zwuDihrGedte1j8PA7rjYw2BV8GU0bQowJdGgtOV8FUWwvX5cnXRSl9jo7O3abK25QJsRxWUGprDETwg5WDzXo9DNcAvvTBV-sxKQel9VuZ7BbK3kmtIZZKepWXnfo_kDFZvywvF9X50cnF0-KRkS7Bs2mdFV8-vP98_Kk6Pfu4OD46rRTruqEytDd9K_uaASE97lgDmmCqNcYamrYH2TPSImJaqo1UgJAiDPOGS85IzSSdFS9udDcuJDFZngRpOoJqwrKhs2JxQ-ggr8Qm2rWMP0SQVvwOhLgUMg42VyYooUqqhkGPZU36usWYo67l-Q2G8pydFe-m28Z-DVplK6N0e6L7GW9XYhm2oiNdnjgLvJ4EYvg2QhrE2iYFzkkPYZzezUnTdBl9-Rd6f3UTtZS5AOtNyPeqnag44hh1iNVsR83vofLQsLYq_09jc3zvwJu9A5kZ4PuwlGNKYnFx_v_s2eU---oOuwLphlUKbtx9x7QP1jegiiGlCObWZIzErr3-uCF27SWm9qK_AAfrF18</recordid><startdate>20220720</startdate><enddate>20220720</enddate><creator>Juri, Hiroshi</creator><creator>Higashiyama, Akira</creator><creator>Yamamoto, Kiyohito</creator><creator>Narumi, Yoshifumi</creator><creator>Azuma, Haruhito</creator><creator>Yamamoto, Kazuhiro</creator><creator>Osuga, Keigo</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8976-6007</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220720</creationdate><title>Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS</title><author>Juri, Hiroshi ; Higashiyama, Akira ; Yamamoto, Kiyohito ; Narumi, Yoshifumi ; Azuma, Haruhito ; Yamamoto, Kazuhiro ; Osuga, Keigo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c599t-f3bfb8ab45e22b1956ed213dd11de68beab52802f83dface00c251767a75245a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bladder</topic><topic>Bladder cancer</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Differentiation</topic><topic>Diffusion coefficient</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal cancer</topic><topic>Invasiveness</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methyl isobutyl carbinol</topic><topic>Muscles</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Juri, Hiroshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higashiyama, Akira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Kiyohito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Narumi, Yoshifumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azuma, Haruhito</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamamoto, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osuga, Keigo</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Juri, Hiroshi</au><au>Higashiyama, Akira</au><au>Yamamoto, Kiyohito</au><au>Narumi, Yoshifumi</au><au>Azuma, Haruhito</au><au>Yamamoto, Kazuhiro</au><au>Osuga, Keigo</au><au>Benetreau, Yann</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-07-20</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0271470</spage><epage>e0271470</epage><pages>e0271470-e0271470</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>To evaluate whether reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI sequence improves the differentiation between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using VI-RADS. Eighty-nine patients underwent bladder MRI with full field-of-view (fFOV) DWI and rFOV DWI sequence. Images were independently evaluated by 2 radiologists. The sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and areas under the curve (AUCs) for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC with fFOV DWI and with rFOV DWI sequence were calculated using VI-RADS. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) values were measured for each patient and averaged. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC by reader 1 were 92%, 78%, 82% and 0.905 with fFOV DWI, and 92%, 86%, 88% and 0.916 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC by reader 2 were 96%, 76%, 82% and 0.900 with conventional DWI, and 96%, 81%, 85% and 0.907 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The specificity and accuracy of reader 1 were significantly better with rFOV DWI sequence than with fFOV DWI, in contrast there was no significant difference for the others. The average of ADC values of fFOV DWI and rFOV DWI sequence were 1.004x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s and 1.003x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s, respectively. The diagnostic ability of rFOV DWI sequence may be better than that of fFOV DWI using VI-RADS for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC regardless of image-reading experience, it is controversial.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>35857788</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0271470</doi><tpages>e0271470</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8976-6007</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271470-e0271470 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2692042505 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Biology and Life Sciences Bladder Bladder cancer Cancer Care and treatment Diagnosis Differentiation Diffusion coefficient Engineering and Technology Evaluation Gastrointestinal cancer Invasiveness Magnetic resonance imaging Medical diagnosis Medical imaging Medicine and Health Sciences Methyl isobutyl carbinol Muscles Patients Research and Analysis Methods |
| title | Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T23%3A40%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20reduced%20field-of-view%20DWI%20and%20full%20field-of%20view%20DWI%20for%20the%20differentiation%20between%20non-muscle%20invasive%20bladder%20cancer%20and%20muscle%20invasive%20bladder%20cancer%20using%20VI-RADS&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Juri,%20Hiroshi&rft.date=2022-07-20&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0271470&rft.epage=e0271470&rft.pages=e0271470-e0271470&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0271470&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA710905455%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2692042505&rft_id=info:pmid/35857788&rft_galeid=A710905455&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_323cac65eb1a42b481170987b52f3732&rfr_iscdi=true |